01 July 2002
State Department Noon Briefing Transcript
(Israel/Palestinian Authority, UN, International Criminal Court,
North/South Korea, India, Cyprus, worldwide/traveling abroad,
Uzbekistan) (7540)
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
1:00 p.m. EST -- Monday, July 1, 2002
Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Assistant Secretary Burns' Trip to London
-- Implementing the President's Speech/Moving Peace Process Forward
-- Disagreement About Current Palestinian Leadership
-- Laying the Groundwork for Free and Fair Elections
-- Enlisting Support of the International Community
-- Future Trips to the Region/Possible Ministerial Meeting
-- Requesting Suspension of Funding to the Palestinian Authority
-- Discussions with Current Members of Palestinian Authority
-- U.S. View of UNRWA
-- Sending Former President Carter to the Middle East
-- Recognition of Need for Reform in the Palestinian Community
UNITED NATIONS
-- Status of Funding to UN Population Fund
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
-- US Veto of Bosnia Peacekeeping Extension
-- Commitment to Peace and stability in the Balkans
-- Withdrawal of Peacekeeping Forces in East Timor
-- Future Peacekeeping Operations/SFOR Mandate
-- Exemption of US Peacekeeping Forces from Prosecution by the Court
-- ICC vs. ICTY
NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA
-- Naval Clash/Talks with North Korea
INDIA
-- Travel Warning/Advice from Ambassador Blackwill
CYPRUS
-- Deadline for Solution to Cyprus Problem
WORLDWIDE
-- Advice to Americans Traveling Abroad/Targeting Americans
UZBEKISTAN
-- Declaration on the Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Framework
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
1:00 P.M. EDT -- MONDAY, JULY 1, 2002
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, sir, ladies and gentlemen. It's a
pleasure to be here. I don't have any statements or announcements, so
I would be glad to take your questions. Mr. Gedda.
QUESTION: Could you talk about Secretary Burns' activities?
(Cell phone ringing.)
MR. BOUCHER: In a moment. Assistant Secretary Burns is traveling to
London later today. He'll hold a meeting with Middle East envoys from
the Quartet. That's Russia, European Union, the United Nations and the
United States. They are going to review steps to support and implement
the President's vision for progress on security, institution-building
and reform, economic reconstruction, and a resumption of an
Israeli-Palestinian political dialogue.
We continue to look to the parties, to the Arab world and the
international community to contribute to these efforts, including the
Palestinian reform effort that's already underway. In that regard, as
I noted I think last week, we note positive steps being taken by
Palestinians to move forward on a broad range of institutional reform.
We're working with the Palestinians and in the region with the
international community to support those Palestinian efforts. And
that, as it was a central focus of the President's speech, will be a
central focus of the discussions that Assistant Secretary Burns has in
London.
QUESTION: Isn't that exactly the same thing, pretty much word for
word, that you said on Friday? And if it is, can't we -- can we
conclude that the mission is the same as it was on Friday?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd leave that conclusion to you. For our part, we always
think that when we plan ahead we get it right and that we can go out
and carry out what we plan to do.
QUESTION: Richard, do you have any new plans that you're going to
offer at this meeting to try to move the peace process forward?
MR. BOUCHER: What we're going to do is talk to people about how to
implement the President's speech, about how to implement what the
President put forward as a real way forward towards a Palestinian
state that can live in peace, side by side with Israel. To do that, we
need to enlist the support of other members of the international
community, and this group that we're going to meet with is a very
active one and has some of the key players in that regard.
So as we go out there we're going to talk about how to support reform,
how to support the institution-building the President talked about,
and how to support efforts towards achievement of the political
settlement that he talked about as well.
QUESTION: Richard, Mr. Prodi just said this morning that he didn't
agree with you on the need to ostracize Mr. Arafat if he's reelected,
or indeed in the meantime. And I noted that the Egyptians too have
eventually come out and said the same thing, as have the Saudis in the
last couple of days.
QUESTION: And the Russians.
QUESTION: And the Russians, I'm told by my colleague. I really think
you need to explain -- I mean, how are you going to work together with
these people when you agree on such a vital and central issue in this?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, Jonathan, all these different statements
you cite, I've seen some and not others, but even those that I've seen
have various aspects and angles to them, and they're not -- there is
no solid issue here. What people do agree upon is the need to move
towards this vision of a Palestinian state. What they do agree upon is
that both sides have obligations. What they do agree upon is the need
for reform, and support for reform, in the Palestinian community, is
an essential part of that.
So I think all the statements that people have made you can't
selectively quote from. You have to understand there is disagreement
about the current Palestinian leadership. There are various people who
have one view or another of it. We all agree Palestinians choose their
leaders. What the United States has made clear, what the Secretary of
State and the President have made clear, is that if we want to proceed
down this road towards achievement of a Palestinian state that
everybody wants to support, the Palestinian people need to be able to
take their own responsibility in that matter. And we need to say quite
clearly that we can work with them if they do, but if they don't, if
the leadership in the Palestinian side persists in the present course,
we're not going to get anywhere.
So the fact is there is substantial agreement in the international
community on this goal, on the fact that both sides need to take
political steps to achieve it, and on the fact that we need to see
Palestinian reform to achieve it. And I think we can certainly work
with everybody to do those things.
QUESTION: The Secretary over the weekend did fill in some of the gaps
and answer some of the questions that we've been asking over the last
few days. And the end of it seems to be an implication that if the
Palestinians do reelect Arafat, basically you're just going to do
nothing for the next three years after that. Is that the right
conclusion to reach?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't reach any particular conclusion at this point,
Jonathan. I think the Secretary answered the questions the same way I
have in the last few days, just to say that there is a choice to be
made, and there's an opportunity and a chance for the Palestinians to
achieve their goal, to achieve their aspiration. We hope they make
that choice, and we will work with them if they do.
If they make some other choice, I suppose we'll have to evaluate that
when we get there. But we don't have any hope of reaching that goal
with the present leadership and the present direction on the
Palestinian side.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Dr. Rice and Secretary Powell both talked about
the importance of laying the groundwork for free and fair elections
when they occur. Can you maybe tell us, in the context of this meeting
in London coming up, what specific steps the US would like to see the
international community take in laying that groundwork in the near
future? What sorts of things do you want to see happen on the ground?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, in terms of the meeting tomorrow, I don't
want to lay out all the US ideas, proposals or elements of discussion
before we get a chance to talk about it with the other people involved
in the meeting. But in a more general sense, I think I can answer for
you that the President made quite clear in his speech that the
international community should support, should help monitor, should do
whatever we could to support free and fair elections on the
Palestinian side so that Palestinian people do get a chance to take
advantage of the opportunity before them.
QUESTION: Well, if I could follow up on that, I mean, are you talking
-- does that mean just monitoring to see that people aren't stuffing
the ballot box, or are you talking about having, you know, robust
opposition parties and the other sorts of things that would seem to
kind of go along with that? I just want to get an understanding of
what we mean --
MR. BOUCHER: I think it's a bit too early, given the way these things
work. It's a bit too early for us to start talking about specifics.
But I would note that we've always been supporters of independent
press. We've always been supporters of civil society, of the rights of
advocacy and things like that. And some of our programs that go
through nongovernmental organizations have already helped to build
civil society in Palestinian areas.
QUESTION: Well, Richard, in answer to the question a few questions
ago, you said that you're going to talk about the need to implement --
how to implement the President's speech, the ideas in it, and you said
to do this we need to enlist the support of the international
community. Are you acknowledging that you don't have the support of
the international community right now? Or are you saying that you want
support on more than just your -- what you say is substantial
agreement on the need for Palestinian reform?
MR. BOUCHER: Matt, I didn't say the one nor the other, and it would be
unfair to say that I did. It's quite clear that we have the general
kind of support that I talked about in reading the statements that
we've all seen and we've all read. It's quite clear we have had our
own conversations already. The Secretary has had a number of
conversations with Arab leaders. Our ambassadors have had further
conversations with Arab leaders and European leaders. And we need to
enlist this support in a very real sense of getting people to carry it
out, people to do things, about specifics on the ground. And that's
what we intend to do.
QUESTION: Well, maybe a better way for me to ask the question would be
to --
MR. BOUCHER: Do you want me to use a word like "actualize"?
QUESTION: No --
MR. BOUCHER: Or "operationalize"?
QUESTION: No, I'm trying not to use those kinds of words because I
don't know what they really mean.
MR. BOUCHER: I'd be glad to if you want me to.
QUESTION: Or proactive, even.
MR. BOUCHER: We need to proactively operationalize the support we
have, Matt, in case there's any doubt.
QUESTION: I thought we were at the State Department, not the Pentagon.
(Laughter.) But are you still working to -- I guess maybe a better way
to ask the question is, are you still working to enlist the support of
the international community for their support of the President's broad
vision? Or do you think you have that right now, and what you're
working at now is specific ways that haven't been enumerated yet?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we have a lot of broad support, and we have a lot
of broad understanding that what the President laid out was a
realistic way forward. Now we need to get people to do things with us
to achieve that.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Richard, how does this play into any future trips to the
region or the peace conference and so forth?
MR. BOUCHER: The question of a ministerial meeting is still out there.
It's not an immediate thing at this point. It may be appropriate and
useful at some future time. Exactly when I couldn't say at this
moment.
The question of travel, again, something that we will probably have
travel. The Secretary said he intended to, after Assistant Secretary
Burns' meetings with the Quartet, he would also be having his own
meetings and discussions with ministers at his level on how to really
take action to move forward on the President's vision. But how exactly
that will take place, I don't have anything for you at this moment.
QUESTION: Back to the meeting in London, are you at this point going
to be requesting from the European Union to at least suspend the
funding for the Palestinian Authority? And I'm basing this question on
Dr. Rice's remarks yesterday particularly talking about the need to --
how US aid to the Palestinians was probably going to go through
alternative institutions. That's what she said. Would you expect the
international community to follow the same?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure the subject will be discussed with other members
of the international community. As we have pointed out, other members
of the international community have been very interested in seeing the
kind of financial responsibility, fiscal reform and responsible
institutions on the Palestinian side so that their money is properly
used for the purposes they intend. So I'm sure that issue of
accountability and transparency will be discussed by everyone.
As you know, United States assistance only goes to nongovernmental
organizations and United Nations organizations, where we can account
for it, where we can audit it, where we can make sure it's properly
used.
So the general subject will be of discussion, but I wouldn't want to
adopt your talking points. I don't know that we'll be telling them one
way or the other what to do with their money, other than the fact that
we all want to make sure our money is accounted for and properly used.
QUESTION: Richard, I have a follow-up. Are we talking about an
accounting problem, a corruption problem with the PA as the State
Department sees it, or are you talking about a terrorism problem? And
that's been unclear based on some of the remarks over the weekend. I
mean, do you have a position on whether the Palestinian Authority has
been "tainted by terror," to use the President's phrase?
MR. BOUCHER: We have the position that the President enunciated. We're
not -- we're certainly not going to fund institutions that might be
involved in terrorism. On the other hand, there are things that need
to be done for the Palestinian people, and we do them in a
humanitarian sense in terms of food and water and shelter and programs
with nongovernmental organizations to build civil society, to provide
opportunities for economic development, like through micro-credit
programs. So there are things that we do for the Palestinian people
without funding any institutions which are either exposed by --
undermined by corruption or somehow tainted by terrorism.
QUESTION: Well, can you answer whether it's the view of the
administration that the Palestinian Authority is tainted by terror?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd go back to the way the President put it in his speech
and just leave it at that.
QUESTION: The Secretary did seem to clear up whether or not the US is
speaking to members of the Palestinian Authority. When asked whether
there had been discussions with current members of the PA, he answered
yes and then went on to the answer that you've often used: we're
talking to a broad --
MR. BOUCHER: -- full range of Palestinians.
QUESTION: -- of Palestinians. But is that correct, I mean, to --
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, actually, it's --
QUESTION: I'm not asking if --
MR. BOUCHER: It also has the virtue of being true. He not only said
it, but he was correct in saying so.
QUESTION: No, that's not what I meant.
MR. BOUCHER: We have --
QUESTION: You've never answered it so directly. This is the first
time?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I think we've said quite clearly that we do have a
full range of contacts that includes people in positions of authority
now, but it also includes a broader range of people in society, in the
legislature, in various walks of life.
QUESTION: But including members of the current Palestinian Authority?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Richard, the head of UNRWA was here last week, and he said
that he has responded to accusations or questions by Congress that
UNRWA is allowing terrorists to operate freely in the refugee camps
and that may be sheltering terrorism. He said that he felt that the
State Department, that the United States Government, supports UNRWA
and was unlikely to act against UNRWA.
What is your view of UNRWA? Are they acting responsibly?
MR. BOUCHER: We talked about all that last week, and I don't have any
change now except to say that we continue to support their
humanitarian efforts.
QUESTION: Can we go to another UN organization briefly, since I doubt
you'll have that much to say about it? But can you say what the status
of this review of US funding to UN Population Fund is?
MR. BOUCHER: No final decisions have been made, and we hope to
announce our determination by the middle of July.
QUESTION: Has this --
QUESTION: Hang on. Who will make the determination -- the White House
or the State Department?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a final answer on that for you right now.
QUESTION: Can you tell us anything about what they found out?
MR. BOUCHER: No. We would expect to release the team's findings. The
team was out there, did their study, reported back to us. We are now
looking at their assessment and we'll probably make public their
assessment at the same time as we make the announcement of the
determination.
I would expect to do that here. Let me answer it that way.
QUESTION: The Secretary basically, the last time he spoke about this
on the Hill, was fairly supportive and said that there was no -- as
far as I could understand it, there wasn't -- there's not really been
a suspicion that they were allowing coercive abortions to take place
in China. Has the administration changed its view on that? Or --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, once again, I'll refer you to the assessment when
we release it. We just sent a team explicitly to go look at those
questions, to go look at the UN activities and the other things that
were going on. And therefore, we'll have that assessment for you when
we can give you the determination that goes with it.
QUESTION: International Criminal Court?
QUESTION: Well, I've got one more, which is (inaudible) funding has
been suspended for six months from the United States to the UNFP; is
that correct?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, but we announced that some time ago, didn't we?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. I'd have to --
QUESTION: It's based on the outcome of this investigation.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I think we announced that before we -- when we
announced the team. You'd have to go back and see what we said at the
time.
All right, let me tell you where we are in New York with the
International Criminal Court and the Bosnia resolution. The US vetoed
the Bosnia peacekeeping extension, not from lack of commitment to
Bosnia or to peacekeeping, but because the Council has continued to
fail to address the unacceptable risks that are posed for US
peacekeepers by the International Criminal Court.
The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of this Court.
We are determined that our citizens not be exposed to legal jeopardy
before the International Criminal Court as a result of participating
in peacekeeping. A solution has to be found.
Our commitment to peace and stability in the Balkans should be beyond
question. For years we have invested heavily in Bosnia's future --
militarily, politically and financially. We led the negotiations that
produced the Dayton Agreements. We have more than 2,000 military and
police peacekeepers in Bosnia -- that's 46 policemen. And the senior
UN official there is an American, Jacques Kline. We have not abandoned
our commitment to the Balkans.
It's a measure of the depth of our feeling about this International
Criminal Court that we decided to veto the full extension of the
peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia. Since the Rome negotiations to
establish the International Criminal Court, especially these past
weeks at the UN, we have worked hard to find a solution to our
International Criminal Court concerns. We cannot allow our
peacekeepers to be subject to the extranational legal jurisdiction of
the International Criminal Court, nor can we allow the International
Criminal Court to second-guess our legal system.
We vetoed the Bosnia mandate renewal because of these concerns. They
could have been met in a manner that was consistent with the
International Criminal Court Treaty, but they were not. So we still
hope to work this out. We agreed to another three-day extension of
this resolution, and we still intend to work with other members of the
Council during these days to try to come up with a solution. As we
have said, we proposed a solution that is consistent with the
obligations that members -- some of the members have to the Court, and
also consistent with our strong desire to have the UN continue its
peacekeeping and for us to continue as part of that.
QUESTION: Have you pulled out your small contingent of people from
East Timor because of this problem?
MR. BOUCHER: We -- as you know, as you sort of point out by the
question, this question arose some time ago with the Timor resolution.
So there are two military observers who are being withdrawn from East
Timor, and we'll have to review other peacekeeping deployments.
But as we said before, the entire problem could be solved by a UN
Security Council resolution that we have proposed. But so far it has
not been.
QUESTION: Is it just two? Or are there three?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's kind of interesting, because now that I look
at it, I've got three in one piece of paper and two in another, I
think.
QUESTION: Two and a half?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, in the explanation of vote, we said in East Timor
only three US soldiers participate, and we intend to withdraw them
absent a solution to the question. And we will clarify for you.
QUESTION: When you say "intend to withdraw them," I'm trying to
understand this, because you spoke earlier about unacceptable risk and
unreasonable legal jeopardy and so on. But all these people -- not
only -- all these people in peacekeeping operations around the world
are already in that position. So why -- when -- why are you not
withdrawing them all immediately if this risk is unacceptable?
And secondly, is it not also true that all US forces abroad are at
exactly the same risk?
MR. BOUCHER: And for that reason we will be pursuing various efforts,
including so-called Article 98 agreements, which the Rome statute
allows nations to agree not to turn each other's nationals over to the
International Criminal Court. So that's one thing we're going to have
to do.
Second of all, the Court goes into effect today, and that's why the
operative question arises today. As you know, last week we were trying
to propose a solution to this problem that would have accounted for
all American forces that are participating under peacekeeping
operations. Then we tried to propose a solution that would apply to
those who are involved in the Bosnia operation.
So these are efforts that we have made that we believe again are
entirely consistent with the obligations that other nations have to
the Court, but which provide for the continuation of our presence in
the peacekeeping operations.
How we deal with each of those situations, we'll have to look at,
depending on what we can achieve. But we still have another couple
days to try to achieve something at the United Nations.
QUESTION: Yes, but you didn't say when -- you didn't say when you
intend to withdraw the ones in East Timor? And why have you chosen
those in advance of any others who might be in other missions, like
for example the Truce Supervision Organization on the Lebanese-Israeli
border?
MR. BOUCHER: Because we tried to do this -- every time one of these
resolutions comes up for renewal, we're going to face this question.
We tried to do it in the Timor resolution and weren't able to get it,
so therefore we know those people are going to be exposed. In terms of
other operations, I suppose we'll either look at the generic question,
depending on how this immediate Bosnia resolution comes out, or deal
with it as those operations come up for renewal.
QUESTION: Richard, why -- sorry, I still have -- why wait till
renewal? They're already in this unreasonable risk
MR. BOUCHER: We understand that. But there is an attempt now to see
what we can do and work it out. So I don't want to prejudge the
outcome of this attempt and what the implications may be of that or
other operations.
QUESTION: Richard, up until this veto was cast, we understood that you
were going to threaten to withdraw US peacekeepers from missions. But
now you've raised the ante, and you've said you will block UN
peacekeeping for all countries if Americans are not exempted from
prosecution. Is this an attempt -- isn't this in fact an attempt to
threaten to veto all peacekeeping operations by the United Nations?
MR. BOUCHER: It's an attempt to get action on what we think is a very
important question. This question applies to us as well as to others
who are not members of the Court, but who participate in UN
peacekeeping operations. And it's an important issue that we feel the
Council needs to deal with, an important issue we feel the Council can
deal with.
Let there be no doubt: the United States military adheres to the very
highest standards of behavior and conduct. There is no question of our
behavior, there is no question of our accountability, there is no
question of the willingness of the United States to punish any actions
that might occur within its forces.
So it's not really an issue of how they conduct themselves. It's an
issue of establishing that our people, who go out on these
humanitarian missions, who go out on these often dangerous
peacekeeping missions, are not going to be subject to jurisdiction by
a court which itself is not subject to any higher jurisdiction, which
itself is not subject to the authority of the UN Security Council in
terms of the prosecutions.
So the Security Council has the opportunity within the establishment
of the Court to do this, and we think they should in a manner that's
entirely consistent with the Court's operation.
QUESTION: But Richard, you didn't quite answer the question, which is,
what if an operation like Sierra Leone comes up, in which the United
States is not involved, there are no US forces at risk of being
brought by the International Criminal Court, will the United States
veto peacekeeping operations in which US forces are not involved --
MR. BOUCHER: I cannot make that statement at this point. I cannot --
it's a hypothetical question that we would have to deal with. As I
said, the issue for us is trying to deal with this question in a way
that is satisfactory to us and other people who may not be members of
the court. To have that jurisdiction hanging over the heads of those
who contribute to the peacekeeping operations, even when they're
responsible, like us -- and we assume that all members of the
peacekeeping operations are responsible -- we don't think that's
appropriate to have that hanging over the heads of those who would
participate.
QUESTION: Is one potential resolution to this to have the United
States stop participating in future peacekeeping missions?
MR. BOUCHER: It's certainly not our desire. We want to stay in Bosnia.
We want to work this out. We want to continue to support the people of
Bosnia in their efforts to reconstruction. The Secretary talked to
High Representative Paddy Ashdown today, this morning, brought him up
to speed and told him -- brought him up to date on where we stand on
the situation, made quite clear that we would like to work this out,
we would like to contribute to the Bosnia mission and to carry out our
obligations there.
QUESTION: Richard, what's your understanding of how failure to resolve
this would affect the SFOR mandate in Bosnia, which is not, of course,
as you know, a strictly UN --
MR. BOUCHER: It's not a strictly UN mandate. That's something we'll
have to examine.
QUESTION: But you haven't come to -- your lawyers have not come to any
conclusion?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any conclusions for you at this moment.
QUESTION: Isn't this already taking effect? Apparently in Mogadishu,
they're rejecting the United Nations coming in with peacekeepers, but
yet on the other hand they want a peace conference. Isn't that already
taking effect, where so much lawlessness, about two million people
have died in the last number of years?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything particularly new on the issue of
Somalia. I don't think it's a factor right here, right now.
QUESTION: No, but I'm saying this whole -- this whole discussion of
the last five minutes --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think the questions of the Court -- the
International Criminal Court actually apply there. There is
lawlessness there, and there has been a desire on the part of the
international community to do whatever we can to help establish public
order there.
QUESTION: Richard, a technical question. Does what you want, the
exemption of US peacekeeping forces from prosecution by the Court,
require an amendment of the Treaty?
MR. BOUCHER: No, no. What we have proposed -- in fact, we have put
forward proposals to the United Nations that we think solve the
problem in ways that are entirely consistent with the obligation that
many of the members have to the Court. It does not require amendment
to the Treaty; in fact, there are provisions in the Treaty that allow
specifically for that kind of action.
So we are looking to have the UN Security Council do that in a manner
that makes clear that those who participate in these missions, those
who take responsibility for their own forces and who do participate in
these missions, should not be subject to this jurisdiction.
QUESTION: Then why do you feel there's such opposition if this can be
done without interrupting the Treaty?
MR. BOUCHER: Frankly, I don't know. You'd have to ask others. Yeah,
you'd have to ask other countries who are working on this.
QUESTION: I'd like to move on to the Korean Peninsula.
QUESTION: Another question?
MR. BOUCHER: Sir.
QUESTION: But why are you afraid of US forces being tried in such a
court? Are there any other examples in which countries have tried to
prosecute American peacekeepers in any jurisdiction anywhere?
MR. BOUCHER: This Court has just gone into effect. We have expressed
our concerns, the previous administration expressed its concerns,
about how it operated, about how the prosecutions can be initiated
without any action by a higher authority. And that is the concern of
this Court and this instrument that's gone into effect today. So no,
no examples yet.
QUESTION: Richard, one issue. Would not American troops serving in the
Balkans have been subject to the ITCY -- or ICTY, whatever it is --
for the past six, seven years?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's true. But remember, the Tribunal for
Yugoslavia was created by the UN Security Council. And we continue to
support international justice. We continue to support the use of these
tribunals where it's appropriate, provided that the UN Security
Council gets to make the decision on where these situations apply and
where the prosecutions need to occur. So we have supported that -- the
establishment of that court.
QUESTION: The UN Security Council makes decisions on prosecutions?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, it makes decisions to establish a tribunal for a
particular instance, for a particular event.
QUESTION: Why would Americans not be subject to prosecution there?
MR. BOUCHER: Why would they not be?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BOUCHER: They, I mean, theoretically could be. They won't be
because they don't do that sort of -- they don't carry out war crimes.
But let me check on the exact legalities of it. But there is a
difference between the International Criminal Court and the way it's
established and its authorities and its ability to prosecute, and the
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, which is established
under a United Nations mandate.
QUESTION: And what's -- what do you have to say about what happened
over the weekend, or I guess maybe late Friday, between the two
Koreas? And does the clash affect your -- the offer of talks that has
been made?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the Secretary spoke a little bit about the
incident over the weekend. We certainly regret the loss of life and
injuries. We express our strong sympathy to the families. And we
support the stance of our ally, South Korea, against these armed
provocations. We have been in very close touch with the South Koreans
from our Embassy in Seoul, and US forces were in touch with
counterparts in the South Korean Government.
As for talks with North Korea, we have said we are prepared to talk to
North Korea about issues of concern. We have not yet heard back from
the North Koreans regarding our proposal for further discussions, and
we're waiting for their response. So we'll consider their response in
light of these recent events.
QUESTION: You're not thinking that the North Koreans would have to
apologize before you would go forward with --
MR. BOUCHER: We'll see what their response is, and then we'll consider
it.
QUESTION: So have you told the North Koreans now that, in addition to
an answer on your proposal, you also want an explanation or something
of what happened from their side?
MR. BOUCHER: We are waiting to hear from them in response to our
proposals on further discussions. That's where we stand. When we get
that, we'll consider it in light of the recent events.
QUESTION: It sounds like you're (inaudible) talks if they don't give
you the right answer.
MR. BOUCHER: We'll see what their answer is, and then we'll consider
what we do.
QUESTION: Well, when you say --
QUESTION: Well, would you expect them to address this in their
response to your proposal?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we are looking for a response to our proposal
on further discussions.
QUESTION: But only --
MR. BOUCHER: That's what we're waiting for a response on. And we'll
see what that response is, and then we'll consider it.
QUESTION: Is there any linkage at all between the resolution of this
armed provocation from the North Koreans and discussions with the US
on --
MR. BOUCHER: Obviously we are very concerned about this incident,
about the armed provocation. We have also made proposals for further
talks. And as I said, once we hear from them, we'll consider it
altogether.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, Richard, I don't want to split hairs, but I just
want to make sure I understand it. You are waiting for a response on
your offer, which was made before this incident?
MR. BOUCHER: That's right.
QUESTION: And --
MR. BOUCHER: And now this incident has occurred.
QUESTION: This incident has occurred.
MR. BOUCHER: When we get their response on our offer, on our
proposals, we'll consider that response in light of the incident.
QUESTION: Ah.
MR. BOUCHER: So we will look at both things together once we hear. But
there's still a piece missing, which is we have not heard from them.
QUESTION: Okay. So given what you just said, does the US offer for
talks still stand?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we're looking to hear back from them, and then
we'll consider it.
QUESTION: Middle East? Since former President Carter is respected as
an honest broker around the world, and since he's again heading for
South America, is there any thought of sending him to the Middle East?
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't heard any proposals like that, and I don't think
the President proposed that in his speech.
We have a gentleman down here first, please.
QUESTION: Richard, as far as Arafat or the election is concerned, many
people in the area feel that he is like a king or sheikh, and kings
and sheikhs cannot be ousted in the Arab world. Do you know any
privately what the Arab leaders are telling you about this, to oust
him?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we have sort of had this discussion a number of
times, and I have said people in various communities, Europeans, Arab
members with whom we're cooperating, people in the Palestinian
Authority, have made quite clear the need for reform. There is broad
recognition of the need for very thorough reform in the Palestinian
community, and a lot of people from the outside want to support the
efforts. The Palestinians themselves are making the reform to open up,
to have more transparency, more accountability, better institutions,
more responsibility.
So that's what we're supporting. We can also make quite clear that
that is the way to achieve a Palestinian state that they desire and
that we desire, that we see as the way to have peace with a
Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. So we think the
choice is theirs, and the Palestinian people need the opportunity to
make that choice.
QUESTION: One on India. India Globe is quoting Indian officials that
US Ambassador Blackwill is the one who did really create a panic about
Americans should leave India, even though India was not at the verge
of war. That's what the Defense Minister Fernandes said. And they need
explanation why he did that.
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see the quotes. I think you'll remember that I
announced the advisory, I announced the Travel Warning, so I guess I'm
the one that did it.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Is that what -- but let me follow, I'm sorry. Is that -- you
announced, I know, the US warning. But was that on the advice from
Ambassador Blackwill, or you did it on your own or from Secretary of
State?
(Laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: Just the thought occurred to me one day. (Laughter.)
There's a very careful process. We work very closely with our
embassies. We work very closely with those who have information back
here. We do a very careful assessment. Just very, very close with our
embassies as we do this. But we make a decision based on all possible
views and all possible information, and we try to make a responsible
decision, not only for our own personnel, but for other Americans. And
we give you the warning when we think there's a need to give that sort
of advice. We do it, and it's -- in every single case it's a product
of very close study and careful coordination.
QUESTION: But Richard, can you clear, please, and can you clarify or
confirm that if you have received in the State Department from
Ambassador Blackwill personally to let Americans get out of India? And
personally, any message from him?
MR. BOUCHER: We receive all kinds of messages from our embassy. Our
embassies themselves, when they make these kinds of recommendations or
discuss these kind of issues, they do it with their emergency action
committees, with the other agencies that are there, the other people
who are there, including consular sections which are in close touch
with Americans, consular sections that are in close touch with
businesses.
QUESTION: Are you ready to --
MR. BOUCHER: So this is a collective decision of the proper sort, that
we have to get everybody involved to make sure we have a full range of
views to carefully consider.
QUESTION: Are you ready to reverse it now?
MR. BOUCHER: We issued a new advisory for India last week.
QUESTION: On Cyprus. Since the deadline for a solution to the Cyprus
problem was yesterday, without any concrete result, how do you assess,
Mr. Boucher, the Cyprus issue, since your government is very much
involved in the process, along with the United Nations?
MR. BOUCHER: You're right in saying that the goal of getting some kind
of agreement by the end of the month of June was not met. We continue
to consider it a very important issue, and one that we want to pursue
in conjunction with the United Nations. And I think you'll continue to
find the United States, as well as the United Nations, very active in
that regard.
QUESTION: Richard, the 4th of July is two days away. Do you have any
advice for Americans who are traveling overseas, or at home for that
matter, with respect to the Taliban?
MR. BOUCHER: Our general advice to Americans who are traveling is to
be careful. And this -- obviously we have advice in certain specific
regions and places. We have put out information before, and we'll
continue to put out information to say that there are threats out
there. There are continuing reports of possible threats. We are
concerned about terrorist incidents overseas, and Americans need to
exercise vigilance and be careful.
We may put out, in fact, some new advice to Americans who are
traveling this summer because we do have these reports. But
essentially, it all boils to saying exercise caution, exercise
vigilance, be careful, and have a good time.
QUESTION: Richard, these threats that seem to have been made, were
they primarily against people in this country, can you say, or were
there some also targeting Americans overseas? And would you, before
July 5th, put out a travel warning of some sort?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not exactly sure about when it might happen. It could
happen anytime now. But generally we've been looking at the summer
travel season, particularly now in July and August when a lot of
people do travel, wanting to make sure we updated our advice. As you
know, there have been incidents around the world. There have been
bombings in churches and synagogues. There have been attacks on
embassies and consulates. There have been threats of a whole variety
of ways that manifest themselves.
If we had specific information about a particular threat that we could
prevent or warn people about, we would do that. At this point, what we
have is a general awareness that there are threats out there, and
there's a need for everyone to be vigilant.
QUESTION: Richard, this morning in one of the leading papers in
Washington, and I guess in the country, there was an extremely long
story about Uzbekistan. In the sidebar to that story, I was a bit
confused because it talked about an allegedly secret agreement being
signed between President Karimov and the US, which talked about
reforms in Uzbekistan. And the story said that this was not publicized
at all.
I remember that when President Karimov came here, you guys put out an
entire statement on this, you know, and a list of all the agreements
that were signed, not by President Karimov, but by his Foreign
Minister and Secretary Powell. Was there another agreement that
President Karimov signed, or is this story just wrong?
MR. BOUCHER: The Declaration on Strategic Partnership and Cooperation
Framework was signed on March 12th by Secretary of State Powell and
Uzbekistan's Foreign Minister Kamilov. As you know, we discussed it at
the time. There's a fact sheet on our web page about this that lists
one, two, three, four, five specific points that are in the agreement.
Frankly, in addition to that, the full text to the declaration, while
it hasn't been officially released, has been shared with Members of
Congress, journalists, academics, and nongovernmental organizations.
So many journalists, I think, including reporters for The Washington
Post, have full copies of that agreement. But anybody who's interested
can go ahead and read the fact sheet, which we put out at the time,
and which still contains a very accurate and complete summary of it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: Other than that, it's secret.
(Laughter.)
(The briefing was concluded at 1:40 p.m. EDT.)
(end State Department transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
